FreeBSD not an authorized OS for Adobe
April 12th, 2006
On freebsd-questions mailing list someone asked why was linux-flashplugin removed from the ports.
Well, the answer was that it was removed because according to Macrom .. oops .. Adobe End User License Agreement it is explicitly forbidden to run the Flash Player on FreeBSD (or on any unauthorized operating system).
See License Agreement, section 3.a.D.
The question now is, must i remove it from my system or not as i have installed it before the license was changed? (when and why was it changed, by the way?)
April 12th, 2006 at 11:53 am
No, you don’t have to. License terms can’t be retroactively changed.
But you aren’t allowed to install it on new machines, unless you have (old?) package, where license permitted that.
April 12th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
The point is, the license HASN’T been changed - it’s just that it wasn’t noticed before!
April 12th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
Then yes, you have to remove it if you want to follow the letter of Slovenian law.
But it’s highly unlikely you’ll ever get into troubles even if you don’t.
April 12th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
i was suspecting that as well .. that it wasn’t noticed before.
i wonder why are bsd systems exluded from the packet, though.. actually, why would they want to exclude any os?
so, situation is: i can have a great open-source environment for writing As and compiling swf binaries (with mtasc compiler, eclipse and asdt), but i cannot view them and test them. duh.
April 12th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
Is this the link to the conversation?
http://marc2.theaimsgroup.com/?l=freebsd-questions&m=114485491017365&w=2
If so, the discussion seems to start in the middle of the thread — archiving gets broken lots because of emailer habits — did someone make a decision to change a package somewhere, is that how this started? Links to source info would be great, thanks.
(From what you wrote above, it sounds like a *distribution* was being done counter to agreement — someone can’t bundle Adobe software into their packages without consent — I haven’t heard anything like “forbidding to run on an OS” before, but I *have* heard of the company insisting on licensing agreements before their stuff can be redistributed. That’s why I’m really interested in seeing exactly what was said, where, with a link so I can point other staffers to it, thanks.
jd/adobe
April 12th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
Hi John,
this is the thread that i am reffering to, yes:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2006-April/118790.html
.. and the initial mail:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2006-April/118721.html
basically, it started with someone asking if anybody knew any alternative to linux-flashplugin (now that it was removed) .. and then the discussion began why it was removed etc etc…
April 13th, 2006 at 1:00 am
I’ve done some asking around the office today, and one particular point keeps coming up… the Adobe website is the actual distribution point for Adobe software… others who wish to redistribute Adobe software need to apply for a redistribution license. Even no-cost software like a Player doesn’t imply that the creator cedes distribution rights.
I’m still a bit confused by the conversation, though, because this post says “These ports have been removed because the End User License Agreement explicitly forbids to run the Flash Player on FreeBSD”, but I don’t see any actual explicit mention of “FreeBSD” in the license agreement. I’m not sure of the history of this deal.
April 13th, 2006 at 8:06 am
John,
the part “These ports have been removed because the End User License Agreement explicitly forbids to run the Flash Player on FreeBSD” is actually written in the /usr/ports/UPDATING file (everytime there are changes in the ports it is mentioned in that file). Probably, they only now realized that freebsd (or any bsd system) is not mentioned in the “Authorized Operating System” definition in the EULA. License agreement explicitly mentions which systems are authorized, which (in my opinion as well) excludes all the others.
I don’t know the history of the deal either but i do sincerely hope it gets sorted out and that they contact Adobe and put the flash ports back.